Appetite 191 (2023) 107067

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Increasing meat-free meal selections: The role of social identity salience and
identity-related meal names
Anna K. Zinn *, Oscar Yuheng Zhu, Sara Dolnicar
UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Avoiding meat overconsumption is good for the environment and people’s health. Changing meal names rep­
Vegetarian meals resents a simple, cost-effective way of increasing meat-free meal selection in restaurants. In the past, however,
Social identity this approach has shown limited effectiveness. The activation of different social identities may explain in­
Identity salience
consistencies in prior findings and offer a powerful leverage point for influencing meal choices. We recruited
Interventions
Food choices
participants (N = 899) who identified as “meat-eaters” for an online experiment in which they were asked to
select a meal from a menu that included meat-free and meat-based burgers. We manipulated (1) social identity
salience (meat-eater identity; sustainable identity; personal identity) and (2) the meal names on the menu
(vegetarian name; sustainable name; neutral name). Our findings show that activating a sustainable identity
significantly increases the odds of selecting a meat-free burger (22%) compared to alternative identity conditions
(meat-eater identity 12%, personal identity 12%). Sustainable meal names outperform vegetarian but not neutral
meal names (sustainable name 20%, vegetarian name 12%, neutral name 15%). When participants who previ­
ously selected a meat-based burger (N = 760) were limited to meat-free menu options, satisfaction and enjoy­
ment ratings dropped steeply. This drop was significantly stronger in the meat-eater identity condition.
Accounting for identity salience can lead to more targeted, improved interventions that increase meat-free meal
selections by accounting for people’s different social identities and the social context in which food consumption
tends to occur.

1. Introduction meat consumption, it is important to consider the consumption context;

Currently “prevailing eating practices run alarmingly into the planet’s
environmental limits” (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013, p. 60). Over­
consuming meat has profound negative impacts on the environment and
has been linked to negative health outcomes (e.g., Godfray et al., 2018).
In 2018, 360 million tonnes of meat were consumed globally; an in­
crease of 58% over two decades (Whitnall & Pitts, 2019). The global
livestock sector is responsible for 14.5% of global emissions, and beef
production alone causes 41% of those greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber
et al., 2013). Technological improvements and changes to prevailing
farming practices can help reduce emissions (Gerber et al., 2013), but –
for environmental and health reasons – it is crucial to also avoid meat
overconsumption (Parlasca & Qaim, 2022). Plant-based meals represent
an environmentally sustainable alternative (e.g., Xu et al., 2021) but
changing people’s dietary behaviours is not trivial (Godfray et al.,
2018).
When planning behavioural change interventions aimed at reducing
43% of people report eating meat more frequently when eating out in
restaurants (Biermann & Rau, 2020). People also are more likely to
consume meat and to consume higher amounts of meat when dining out
(Horgan et al., 2019). Interventions aimed at changing meal ordering in
restaurants, therefore, represent a promising approach to reducing meat
overconsumption. One existing intervention that does not restrict
customer choices, is cost-effective, and easy to implement is changing
the names of meat-free meals. This study builds on prior research on
meal name changes and aims to strengthen existing interventions by
accounting for social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Food con­
sumption when dining out is typically a social activity (e.g., Nezlek &
Forestell, 2020), suggesting that customers’ social identities may sub­
stantially influence food choices and perceptions (e.g., Hackel et al.,
2018; Hielkema & Lund, 2022). Our study investigates the potential
value of leveraging specific social identities when trying to reduce meat
consumption. Specifically, we investigate whether the probability of
meat-free meal selections can be increased by interventions that (1)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.zinn@uq.edu.au (A.K. Zinn), o.zhu@business.uq.edu.au (O.Y. Zhu), s.dolnicar@uq.edu.au (S. Dolnicar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107067
Received 20 June 2023; Received in revised form 18 September 2023; Accepted 27 September 2023
Available online 5 October 2023
0195-6663/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A.K. Zinn et al.
activate a sustainable social identity and (2) change meal names on
menus to reflect an identity that both vegetarians and meat-eaters can
identify with. We also test whether social identity-based interventions
can prevent negative impacts on guest satisfaction and enjoyment rat­
ings if the meal choice is restricted to meat-free options.
The theoretical contribution of this study lies in testing the effect of
short-term changes in identity salience on sustainable meal choices
through both a direct salience manipulation and an intervention that
links meal names to a specific identity and therefore provides the op­
portunity to switch to this identity. The study also has immediate
practical implications: To reduce their carbon emissions, food outlets
can adopt social identity-based meal name changes shown in this study
to have the potential to increase demand for meat-free menu items
without negatively affecting guest satisfaction.
1.1. Existing interventions to increase meat-free meal choices
Existing interventions to increase meat-free meal choices can be
described as soft or hard approaches. Hard interventions tend to involve
a restriction of choice or, for instance, a penalty such as increased costs
for certain food items (e.g., Osman & Nelson, 2019). Decreasing the
number of meat-based options on menus (from 75% meat-based to 25%)
and in turn increasing vegetarian options (from 25% vegetarian options
to 75%) leads to more vegetarian meals being chosen by meat-eaters
(Parkin & Attwood, 2022). However, consumer choices must be sub­
stantially restricted to achieve this effect. Mandatory meat-free days are
a further example of a hard intervention. In a natural experiment,
introducing a mandatory meat-free lunch day at schools led to negative
short-term side effects in the form of decreased lunch attendance, less
food eaten, and increased plate waste. In the medium term, plate waste
and attendance were not affected, but students still ate less on meat-free
days (Lombardini & Lankoski, 2013). Similar short- or medium-term
side effects in a restaurant might result in customers not returning and
therefore deeming such an intervention unfeasible. Recently, an
Australian burger chain followed a hard approach by implementing fully
plant-based menus in two restaurants. However, shortly after changing
the menus, the chain had to revert to the traditional menus (Bowling,
2022).
Soft interventions do not restrict consumer choice and, therefore,
enjoy higher public acceptance (e.g., Diepeveen et al., 2013) and appear
not to decrease satisfaction ratings (e.g., Stiles et al., 2022). Changing
meal names or labels is an especially promising intervention because it
does not require restaurants to redesign their services or recipes, is easy
to implement, and does not restrict consumer choice. In past studies,
however, changing names or labels did not consistently reduce meat
demand (e.g., Bianchi et al., 2018), and most field experiments assessing
the effectiveness of changing meal names or labels to decrease meat
consumption have focused on university food services (Stiles et al.,
2022).
While soft interventions are a promising and less intrusive way to
alter meal selections, they require more research and improved designs
to strengthen their effectiveness (Parlasca & Qaim, 2022). One factor
that might explain inconsistencies in previously tested meal name in­
terventions is the social context of meal consumption, specifically,
people’s different social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). A consistent
finding across labelling and meal name interventions studies is that
explicit vegetarian or vegan names perform poorly, possibly because
they present a barrier to people who do not hold a vegan or vegetarian
identity (Hielkema & Lund, 2022). Whether a meal name corresponds
with a person’s social identity depends on the specific context (which
identity is active) and the identities that this person holds (e.g., whether
they are a vegetarian or a meat-eater).
1.2. Social identities and food choices
In the context of food consumption, people can feel strongly about
2
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
being a vegetarian or a meat-eater. Indeed, being a vegetarian is much
more than just a diet (Nezlek & Forestell, 2020): Consuming food is often
a social activity that involves interactions with an in-group (e.g., people
that are also vegetarians; meat-eaters; care about sustainability) or
out-group (people that follow a different diet; have different values).
Therefore, a person’s diet choice can be regarded as a social identity - a
group membership that is important to a person and defines who they
are (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In contrast to someone’s personal identity
which refers to personal attributes of this person, social identities refer
to a person’s “self-descriptions regarding group memberships or self-­
categorizations” (Trepte & Loy, 2017, p. 6). Regarding diet-related social
identities, previous work has, for instance, investigated social identities
as a vegan, a vegetarian, or conscientious “meat-eater” (Rothgerber,
2015). Further, the extent to which a person identifies with a specific
restrictive diet group (e.g., being part of a vegan group or weight-loss
group) has been found to predict adherence to the specific diet (Cru­
wys et al., 2020). Those findings illustrate not only that diet choices can
indeed form a social identity but also how social identification with
specific diet groups can drive behaviour.
Social identities are flexible and different situations and triggers can
activate specific identities and/or someone’s personal identity (e.g.,
Oakes, 1987; Turner, 1987). While general social identification captures
a longer-term construct, identity salience captures the short-term acti­
vation of specific social identities (e.g., Hackel et al., 2018). Previous
research has shown that exogenous triggers can cause a relatively rapid
and effective change in salience – a social identity switch (e.g., Zinn
et al., 2022). Someone’s meat-eater identity, for example, could be
activated if they notice others in their group ordering a meat dish. A
social identity switch towards a sustainable social identity could occur
when the group discusses climate change or if a climate change-related
headline pops up on one’s phone. Importantly, because of their flexible
nature, social identity salience can influence people’s decision-making,
attitudes, and perceptions (e.g., Chakravarty & Fonseca, 2017; Cruwys
et al., 2012; Hackel et al., 2018; Kuppens & Yzerbyt, 2012).
Identity salience can, for instance, influence health-related behav­
ioural intentions (Tarrant & Butler, 2011): Participants report lower
intentions to eat less salt and to remain within recommended alcohol
consumption limits when their identity as a university student is salient
as opposed to their national identity. Further, the strength of identifi­
cation with specific national identities is positively associated with
positive attitudes towards meat-eating and higher intentions to consume
meat (Nguyen & Platow, 2021). Moreover, social identification (the
extent to which someone identifies with a specific social identity) and
identity salience (the current activation of this identity) affect hedonic
experiences in the form of food pleasantness ratings (Hackel et al.,
2018): both a stronger identification with a specific identity (in this case
the “southern identity” from participants based in the southern U.S.) and
the activation of this specific identity increase anticipated pleasantness
ratings of identity-related food items. Identity salience also affects food
pleasantness ratings during food consumption; Canadian participants
preferred the taste of maple syrup over honey when their Canadian
identity is activated. It can be concluded that “consumer choice depends
on the identity contexts in which it unfolds” (Hackel et al., 2018, p. 277).
1.3. Meal name interventions accounting for social identities
Accounting for social identities relevant to meal selection in res­
taurants may represent a promising way of strengthening existing soft
interventions. Social identities as a construct have been considered in
some prior work on meat-free meal selections: food identity labels (e.g.,
labels that refer to meat-free products as the preferred choice for “ani­
mal welfare conscious” or “environment conscious” consumers) can
increase demand for meat-free products (Ortega et al., 2022, p. 4). While
this study did not focus specifically on the concepts of social identifi­
cation or identity salience, the findings indicate that creating links to
existing social identities might prove successful in increasing meat-free
A.K. Zinn et al.
meal selections. A further study (Hielkema & Lund, 2022) builds on the
idea that some explicit labels (such as vegetarian labels) might present a
barrier to people who do not hold a corresponding identity: In an online
experiment, neutral labels on meat-free products were compared to
explicit labels (e.g., vegan or vegetarian labels). The results were
compared across different sub-groups of meat-eaters (meat reducers;
non-reducers and meat avoiders). Neutral names performed better than
explicit names for meat reducers and non-reducers while no significant
difference was found for meat avoiders. Among non-reducers, neutral
labels only outperformed explicit labels when participants had a low
rather than high strength of identification with the meat-eater identity.
These results contradict the initial hypothesis that explicitly labelled
meals would be chosen less frequently if participants identify strongly as
a meat-eater. While the findings concerning the strength of identifica­
tion with a meat-eater identity require further investigation, this study
presents an important step in accounting for social identification when
designing meal name interventions.
All previous studies investigating the role of social identity in the
effectiveness of meal name interventions on reducing meat consumption
have in common a focus on the construct of social identification rather
than identity salience. While the strength of identification is important
to consider, it is a long-term construct (Hackel et al., 2018) and therefore
difficult to change with a behaviour change intervention that occurs at
one single point in time – when a consumer chooses a meal at a
restaurant. In the long-term, someone may change their food-related
social identity (e.g., become a vegetarian). It is unlikely, however that
a meat-eater will adopt a vegetarian identity as a result of studying a
restaurant menu at one single point in time. Interventions can, however,
leverage the short-term activation (salience) of existing identities to
influence food selections. This could be achieved by directly activating a
social identity that is linked to a specific meal choice or by selecting a
meal name that may trigger customers to switch to the identity related to
the meal name. Meat-free dishes that have names closely linked to a
vegetarian identity (e.g., “Veggie Burger”) do not offer the option of an
identity switch for someone who identifies as a meat-eater. Using a name
that refers to an acceptable identity that both vegetarians and
meat-eaters can identify with may enable people to switch identities
and, in turn, their meal choices.
1.4. Research question and hypotheses
To date, social identity salience has not been tested as a leveraging
point in combination with meal name changes for influencing meat-free
food choices in hospitality settings. The present study fills this gap by
investigating the effect of two interventions on meat-free meal selec­
tions: (1) increasing the salience of a sustainable social identity, and (2)
using meal names that link to a specific social identity (sustainable meal
names). We test how these interventions affect meal choices and
whether they prevent a decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment when
people are limited to a meat-free meal option. H1a, H2a, H3, H4a, H5a
and H6 focus on the comparison of the two experimental conditions (as
pre-registered on OSF,1,2). We implemented additional exploratory
conditions (neutral name and personal identity) resulting in H1b, H2b,
H4b and H5b (exploratory - in addition to the pre-registered hypotheses
and design).
Hypotheses 1–3 focus on the people’s initial meal choices given an
unrestricted selection (T1 in the current study). We hypothesize that
identity salience drives meal choice and that a salient sustainable
identity increases meat-free meal choice, resulting in Hypotheses 1.
H1a. The odds of selecting a meat-free meal are higher when
1
OSF link: https://osf.io/6cjb8.
2
These hypotheses are in line with the hypotheses pre-registered on OSF but
have been slightly rephrased to increase clarity.
3
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
participants’ sustainable identity is salient (compared to their meat-
eater identity being salient)
H1b. (exploratory). The odds of selecting a meat-free meal are higher
when participants’ sustainable identity is salient (compared to their
personal identity being salient)
Further, meal selection should be increased if the meal name aligns
with a person’s social identity compared to a neutral name or a name not
aligned with their identity.
H2a. The odds of selecting a meat-free meal are higher when the meal
has a sustainability-focused name (compared to a vegetarian name)
H2b. (exploratory). The odds of selecting a meat-free meal are higher
when the meal has a sustainability-focused name (compared to a neutral
name).
We further tested for an interaction of identity salience and meal
name.
H3. Identity salience and meal naming interact, such that the effect of
meal names on meal selection is strongest if sustainable identity is
salient.
Hypotheses 4–6 focus on the changes in enjoyment and satisfaction
ratings when people who initially chose a meat-based meal (T1) have to
choose among meat-free alternatives only (T2 in the current study). We
hypothesize that activating a sustainable identity can protect against the
negative effect of the change in meal selection on enjoyment and
satisfaction.
H4a. The decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment ratings from the free
choice to the limited choice scenario is weaker when the sustainable
identity is salient (compared to the meat-eater identity)
H4b. (exploratory): The decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment ratings
from the free choice to the limited choice scenario is weaker if the
sustainable identity is salient (compared to their personal identity).
We further test whether the reduction in enjoyment and satisfaction
is smaller if meal names refer to an identity that is linked to sustainable/
meat-free meal choices (sustainable names as compared to vegetarian
names or neutral names).
H5a. The decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment ratings from the free
choice to the limited choice scenario is weaker if meals have a
sustainability-focused name (compared to a vegetarian name)
H5b. (exploratory): The decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment ratings
from the free choice to the limited choice scenario is weaker if meals
have a sustainability-focused name (compared to a neutral name)
Finally, we tested for an interaction of meal name and salience on the
change in enjoyment and satisfaction ratings.
H6. Identity salience and meal naming interact, such that the effect of
meal names on differences in the reduction in satisfaction and enjoy­
ment is strongest when sustainable identity is salient.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study design
The study followed a 3 (salient identity: meat-eater identity vs sus­
tainable identity vs personal identity) x 3 (meal name: vegetarian vs
A.K. Zinn et al. Appetite 191 (2023) 107067

sustainable vs neutral name) 3 between-subjects design. The dependent

variables were food choice in the free-choice scenario (T1) and the
change in satisfaction and enjoyment ratings from the free-choice to the
limited-choice scenario (T1 to T2). Both the pre-study and main study
were conducted online on Qualtrics. The study received ethics approval
from the University of Queensland ethics committee (approval code:
2022/HE001726).

2.2. Participants

We recruited Australian and British participants on Prolific Aca­

demic. Brysbaert (2019) recommends 100 participants per condition for
an effect size of d = 0.40 and a power of .80. A target effect size of d =
0.40 was selected due to it being a common average effect size reported
in large-scale replication studies and meta-analyses in psychology (for
an overview see Brysbaert, 2019) and due to it presenting “the most
reasonable estimate to look for a non-negligible, useful, or theoretically
meaningful effect if you have no further good evidence about the effect size”
(Brysbaert, 2019, p. 7). Those sample size calculations resulted in a
required sample size of approximately 900 participants (100 in each
condition).
We ran separate pre-screens to recruit participants who were meat-
eaters and saw themselves as caring about environmental sustainabil­
ity. To achieve the required sample size for the main study we ran three
pre-screen rounds (1556 participants completed the pre-screen: nround1 Fig. 1. Study procedure.
= 601; nround2 = 603; nround3 = 352) In total, 1156 participants (nround1
= 452; nround2 = 445; nround3 = 259) from the pre-screens met the participants were informed that some meals are unavailable and could
eligibility criteria and were invited to take part in the main study (at choose from meat-free options only. Participants also completed a short
least seven days after completion of the pre-screen). 904 participants questionnaire including the control measures and demographic ques­
completed the main study with 899 being eligible to be included in the tions. After being debriefed, participants were reimbursed through
analysis.4 Of the final sample of participants (N = 899) who took part in Prolific (0.80 GBP for a 5-min survey in line with Prolific payment
the main study, 51.7% identified as female and 46.9% as male (0.6% as recommendations).
non-binary or third gender; 0.3% other; 0.4% preferred not to say). Most
participants were residing in the UK (89%; 11% Australia5) and indi­
2.4. Materials and measures
cated that they had completed a university degree (51.6%; 23% high
school; 18.5% vocational school; 3.4% other; 3.1% doctorate at uni­
2.4.1. Pre-screen measures
versity; 0.3% primary school). The average participant was 41.87 years
In the pre-screen study, we asked participants whether they see
old (SD = 13.20) and reported eating meat 6.69 times per week (SD =
themselves as “environmentally sustainable” (with additional distractor
3.74). A summary of the participants’ demographics in each of the nine
items asking whether they see themselves as caring, humorous, enthu­
conditions can be found in Appendix A.
siastic, and adventurous) on a sliding scale from 0 (do not agree at all) to
100 (agree completely). Participants reported on their dietary re­
2.3. Procedure quirements, food allergies, and how frequently they eat meat-based
meals. To be eligible for the main study, participants had to hold both
Participants who passed the eligibility checks from the pre-screen an identity as a “meat-eater” and a sustainable social identity. To ensure
survey were invited to the main experiment. To avoid any question that participants identified as a “meat-eater”, we only included partici­
asked in the pre-screen interfering with responses in the main experi­ pants who did not have a diet focused on limiting meat consumption and
ment, it was ensured that there were at least seven days between the who reported consuming meat at least three times a week (based on
completion of the pre-screen and the invitation to the main study for all Wolstenholme et al., 2021). To ensure that participants also held a
participants. Fig. 1 summarizes the procedure of the main study. After sustainable social identity, we only included participants who scored at
providing informed consent, participants were randomly allocated to least 50 when asked if they see themselves as “environmentally sus­
one of the nine experimental conditions. All participants completed a tainable” (scores under 50 indicated that participants did not see
free meal selection (T1) and a limited meal selection (T2) where themselves as environmentally sustainable).
We further assessed the strength of identification with both the meat-
eater and sustainable identity. We measured the strength of identifica­
3
The personal identity and neutral name condition were not part of the tion with a four-item measure from Doosje et al. (1995) including items
original pre-registration and have been added to the random allocation during such as “I identify with other people who [enjoy eating meat/care about
the second pre-screen round. The conditions were added as additional explor­ environmental sustainability]” and a 7-point answer format (1 = do not
atory groups. The results referring to these conditions are labelled as explor­ agree at all, 7 = agree completely). Participants also reported how often
atory due to not being part of the initial pre-registration and having been added
they order or prepare a meal that includes meat (1) at home and (2) in
to the balancing at a later stage.
4 restaurants, and how frequently they dine out in restaurants.
Four participants had to be excluded due to an error in the display of the
manipulation as part of the Qualtrics survey and one participant had to be
excluded due to contradicting information concerning the studies eligibility 2.4.2. Identity salience manipulation
criteria (country of residence) on Prolific vs. in the survey. At the start of the main study, we used three things manipulations
5
The uneven representation of the two nationality groups is due to the (Haslam et al., 1999) to activate either participants’ sustainable social
number of available participants of each group on Prolific Academic. identity, their social identity as a meat-eater or their personal identity.

4
A.K. Zinn et al.
This manipulation activates a specific identity by asking participants to
reflect on things that they and other people who share this identity do
“often, rarely, well, and badly” (Haslam et al., 1999). Participants first
saw one of the following sentences depending on the condition they had
been allocated to: “Please think of yourself as a person that enjoys eating
meat” (meat-eater condition); “Please think of yourself as a person that
cares about environmental sustainability” (sustainable social identity);
“Please think of yourself as an individual.” (personal identity). After the
sentence, participants saw an image linked to the specific identity which
was manipulated (links to the specific images are provided in the open
materials section on OSF). Based on an adaptation of the three things
manipulation by Zinn et al. (2023), participants were then instructed to
write about the identity which was being made salient: “Please write at
least 4–5 sentences (25 words) about the following topic: What are things
that [you and other people that enjoy eating meat/you and other people that
care about environmental sustainability/you personally] do … often? …
rarely? … well? … badly?“. By asking participants to reflect on both
positive and negative aspects, this manipulation activates a specific
identity while avoiding emotional confounds (Haslam, 2004).
2.4.3. Food selection and naming
Participants completed two food selection tasks – once they could
choose from meat-free and meat-based meals (T1) and once their choice
was limited to meat-free meals (T2). Further, the names of the presented
meal choices differed between the conditions (vegetarian names vs
sustainable names vs neutral names). Fig. 2 shows the two naming
conditions across the two time points. In all conditions, we displayed a
“V” symbol next to the vegetarian burgers to indicate that those burgers
were meat-free. Placing a “V” (vegetarian) symbol next to meal names
Fig. 2. Food selection tasks by labelling condition.
5
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
does not impact meal choices by meat-eaters (Parkin & Attwood, 2022)
while still signalling that a meal is meat-free.
2.4.4. Enjoyment and satisfaction
After each meal choice, participants indicated the anticipated
enjoyment of the selected meal (“Do you think you will enjoy this
burger?“) and their satisfaction (“Are you satisfied with your burger se­
lection?“) with their meal selection (based on research identifying
satisfaction and enjoyment as two key emotions in food experiences;
Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008). Participants responded using a sliding
scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much).
2.4.5. Habit, effort, and self-congruity with meal choice
After each meal choice, participants self-reported the effort it took to
make the meal choice (“Was it easy to select a burger?“; based on mental
effort measure by Hart & Staveland, 1988) and the extent to which habit
influenced their choice (“A habit is defined as a settled or regular tendency
or practice, one that is automatic. To which degree did habit influence your
burger choice?“; based on MacInnes et al., 2022). Further, we assessed
participants’ self-congruity with their meal choice (“My burger choice is
in line with who I am as a person”; based on Gravelines et al., 2022).
Respondents recorded their answers on a sliding scale from 0 (not at all)
to 100 (very much). Participants also reported the general effort and
habits associated with preparing and ordering meat-free meals and
meals that include meat. Those items were exploratory items to inform
future studies and are summarised in Appendix B.
2.4.6. Self-reported salience
After the Burger selection at T1 and after the T2 selection, we
A.K. Zinn et al.
included self-report salience measures for the meat-eater identity and
sustainable identity. The items asked participants to respond to the
statement “Right now, I think of myself as a person that [enjoys eating meat/
cares about environmental sustainability]” responded to on a scale from
0 (not at all) to 100 (very much) (based on Verkuyten & Hagendoorn,
1998).
2.4.7. Demographic questionnaire
At the end of the study, participants completed a demographic
questionnaire including information about their age, the gender they
identify with, the country they currently reside in, their highest level of
education, and the ethnic group they identify with. At the end of the
demographic questionnaire, participants had the opportunity to leave
comments.
3. Results
The number of participants per condition was approximately equal
(meat-eater identity and vegetarian meal name: n = 101; meat-eater
identity and sustainable meal name: n = 101; meat-eater identity and
neutral meal name: n = 100; sustainable identity and vegetarian meal
name: n = 100; sustainable identity and sustainable meal name: n = 99;
sustainable identity and neutral meal name: n = 100; personal identity
and vegetarian meal name n = 99; personal identity and sustainable
meal name: n = 100; personal identity and neutral meals name: n = 99).
Statistical comparisons to the personal identity group and neutral name
condition were included as exploratory analyses (H1b, H2b, H4b and
H5b) in addition to the main pre-registered hypotheses and design (H1a,
H2a, H3, H4a, H5a and H6).
3.1. Randomisation checks
Participants in the nine different groups did not differ significantly in
how much meat they reported consuming per week (F (8, 886) = 0.96, p
= .469, η2p = 0.009), their age (F (8, 887) = 0.64, p = .747, η2p = 0.006),
or in their strength of identification with the meat-eater identity (F (8,
889) = 1.35, p = .213, η2p = 0.012) and sustainable identity (F (8, 889) =
0.85, p = .561, η2p = 0.008). On average, participants had a score of 4.45
(SD = 1.41) for the strength of identification with the meat-eater iden­
tity and 4.71 (SD = 1.13) for the sustainable identity. The average score
for perceiving oneself as someone who cares about environmental sus­
tainability was 72.05 (SD = 14.09). We did find significant differences
across conditions in the number of participants that were Australian or
UK residents (X2 (8, N = 899) = 37.03, p < .001.; descriptive statistics
for the nationality groups for each condition are summarised in Ap­
pendix A). However, Australian and UK participants did not differ
significantly on any of the main outcome measures: likeliness to choose
a meat-free burger (OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.53, 1.66], p = .838); enjoy­
ment at T1 (F (1, 897) = 0.24, p = .627, η2p < 0.001) and T2 (F (1, 897) =
2.84, p = .092, η2p = 0.003).
3.2. Manipulation check
As a manipulation check, we tested whether the three things
manipulation at the start of the study successfully activated the corre­
sponding identity. The identity manipulation showed a significant effect
on the self-reported salience at T1 for the meat-eater identity (F (2, 896)
= 11.67, p = < .001, η2p = 0.025) and sustainable identity (F (2, 896) =
3.60, p = .028, η2p = 0.008). The self-reported salience scores for all
conditions are summarised in Table 1. Pairwise comparisons showed
that the self-reported salience of the meat-eater identity was signifi­
cantly higher in the meat-eater identity condition compared to the
personal identity condition (p = .033, 95%CI [0.29, 6.82]) and sus­
tainable identity condition (p < .001, 95%CI [4.75, 11.28]) and signif­
icantly higher in the personal identity condition as compared to the
sustainable identity condition (p = .008, 95%CI [1.19, 7.74]). The self-
6
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
Table 1
Self-reported salience across salience conditions.
Self-reported salience Sustainable Meat-eater Personal identity
identity identity condition
condition condition
M SD M SD M SD
Meat-eater identity 76.25 21.12 84.26 18.46 80.71 21.43
Sustainable identity 72.28 17.81 71.37 17.95 68.58 16.99
reported salience of the sustainable identity was significantly higher in
the sustainable identity condition than in the personal identity condition
(p = .010, 95%CI [0.88, 6.53]) but did not differ significantly for the
remaining comparison groups (sustainable identity condition and meat-
eater identity condition: p = .525, 95%CI [− 1.90, 3.73]; personal
identity condition and meat-eater condition: p = .052, 95%CI [− 5.61,
0.03]).
3.3. Hypotheses 1–3: Burger selection at T1
We ran logistic regressions to test the effects of identity salience and
meal names on the likelihood that participants chose a meat-free burger
in the free selection task (T1).
3.3.1. H1a and H1b. Effect of salient identity on burger selection
The binary logistic regression model including identity salience was
significant (χ2 (2, N = 899) = 15.82, p < .001), explaining 3% of the
variation in burger selections (Nagelkerke R2). In line with hypothesis
1a, participants in the sustainable identity condition were twice as likely
to choose a meat-free burger than participants in the meat-eater con­
dition (OR = 2.13, 95% CI [1.37, 3.32], p < .001). Further – in line with
H1b – participants in the sustainable identity condition were more likely
to choose a meat-free burger than participants in the personal identity
condition (OR = 2.10, 95%CI [1.35, 3.27], p < .001). Participants in the
meat-eater and personal identity condition did not differ significantly in
their likelihood to select a meat-free burger (OR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.62,
1.66], p = .952). As shown in Fig. 3, participants across all conditions
chose more burgers that included meat. In the personal identity condi­
tion, 262 meat burgers were chosen, compared to 36 meat-free burgers
(12%). Similarly, in the meat-eater identity condition, 266 of the
selected burgers contained meat and 36 were meat-free (12%). In
contrast, in the sustainable identity condition, 232 selected burgers
contained meat and 67 were meat-free (22%).
3.3.2. H2a and H2b. Effect of meal names on burger selection
Hypothesis 2 tested whether the selection of meat-free burgers
increased if they had a sustainability-focused name as opposed to a
Fig. 3. Burger selection depending on the different identity conditions (Error
bars: 95% CI).
A.K. Zinn et al. Appetite 191 (2023) 107067

vegetarian name (H2a) or neutral name (H2b). The logistic regression Table 2
model including meal name was significant (χ2 (2, N = 899) = 7.29, p = Burger selection at T1 by condition.
.026), explaining 1.4% of the variation in burger selections (Nagelkerke Salient Identity Meal Name N Meat-based Meat-free
R2). In line with H2a, a meat-free meal was more likely selected if Burgers Burgers
labelled with a sustainable as compared to vegetarian name (OR = 1.85, Count % Count %
95%CI [1.18, 2.92], p = .008). The neutral name compared to the
Sustainable identity neutral 100 79 79% 21 21%
vegetarian name (OR = 1.34, 95%CI [0.84, 2.16], p = .225) and the sustainable 99 71 72% 28 28%
neutral name compared to the sustainable name (OR = 0.72, 95%CI vegetarian 100 82 82% 18 18%
[0.47, 1.11], p = .137) did not differ significantly in the likelihood to Meat-eater identity neutral 100 86 86% 14 14%
select a meat-free burger. Therefore, we found no support for H2b – the sustainable 101 85 84% 16 16%
vegetarian 101 95 94% 6 6%
sustainable name outperforming the neutral name. Fig. 4 summarizes
Personal identity neutral 99 89 90% 10 10%
the count of burger selections for all name conditions. In the neutral sustainable 100 85 85% 15 15%
name condition, 254 selected burgers contained meat and 45 did not vegetarian 99 88 89% 11 11%
(15%). The vegetarian name condition led to the fewest meat-free bur­ Total 899 760 84.5% 139 15.5%
gers (35; 12%; 265 selected burgers included meat) being chosen. In the
sustainable name condition, 241 selected burgers included meat and 59
were meat-free (20%). variables. Enjoyment ratings decreased significantly from T1 to T2 (F (1,
757) = 602.49, p < .001, 95%CI [− 27.85, − 23.72], η2p = 0.44). The main
3.3.3. H3: Interaction between salient identity and meal names on burger effect of identity was non-significant (F (2, 757) = 0.47, p = .627, η2p =
selection 0.001). In line with hypothesis 4, we found a significant interaction of
As shown in Table 2, the highest selection of meat-free burgers (28% time and identity (F (2, 757) = 4.21, p = .015, η2p = 0.011). As shown in
of participants) occurred in the condition in which the sustainable Fig. 5, participants in the meat-eater identity condition showed the
identity was activated and the meat-free burgers had a “sustainable” strongest decrease of enjoyment ratings (M = − 26.82, SE = 1.77).
name. In comparison, the “vegetarian” name in combination with the Separate follow-up analyses showed that the decrease in the meat-eater
meat-eater identity being salient led to only 6% of people choosing the identity condition was significantly larger (p = .005, 95%CI [− 12.06,
meat-free burger. − 2.18]) than the decrease in the personal identity condition (M =
Hypothesis 3 tested for an interaction between meal name and − 22.71, SE = 1.79) and marginally larger (p = .054, 95%CI [− 10.10,
identity. The interaction between identity and type of name did not add 0.09]) than the decrease in the sustainable identity condition (M =
significantly to the model including salience and meal name (Wald’s χ2 − 24.82, SE = 1.90). There was no significant difference in the decrease
(4, N = 899) = 2.53, p = .639) and therefore we found no support for in enjoyment between the personal identity and sustainable identity
Hypothesis 3. condition (p = .418, 95%CI [− 7.23, 3.00]).
Similarly, we found a significant decrease in satisfaction ratings from
T1 to T2 (F (1, 757) = 722.31, p < .001, 95%CI [− 35.01, − 30.24], η2p =
3.4. Hypotheses 4–6: Changes in enjoyment and satisfaction ratings from 0.49). There was no significant main effect of identity (F (2, 757) = 1.23,
T1 to T2 p = .293, η2p = 0.003). The interaction of time and identity was signifi­
cant (F (2, 757) = 4.48, p = .008, η2p = 0.013). Fig. 6 shows the change in
Hypotheses 4–6 focused on changes in enjoyment and satisfaction satisfaction ratings. As for the enjoyment ratings, the meat-eater identity
ratings after participants were informed that only meat-free burgers are condition showed a decrease in satisfaction ratings (M = − 37.87, SE =
available. For these hypotheses, we only included the 760 participants 2.05) that was significantly larger (p = .005, 95%CI [− 13.93, − 2.51])
who chose a meat burger initially at T1. than the decrease in the personal identity condition (M = − 29.65, SE =
2.06) and significantly larger (p = .013, 95%CI [− 13.39, − 1.61]) than
3.4.1. H4. Main effect of salient identity on enjoyment the decrease in the sustainable identity condition (M = − 30.36, SE =
We tested whether the three conditions differed significantly in the 2.19). There was no significant difference in the decrease in enjoyment
decrease in satisfaction and enjoyment when participants had to change between the personal identity and sustainable identity condition (p =
their Burger choice to a meat-free version. We ran repeated measures .812, 95%CI [− 6.63, 5.19]).
ANOVAs with salience and time (T1 vs T2) as the independent variables
and the enjoyment rating and satisfaction rating as the dependent

Fig. 5. Enjoyment ratings depending on time and salient identity

Fig. 4. Burger selection depending on the different name conditions (Error Note. The range of the scale (0–100) has been adjusted to improve the visibility
bars: 95% CI). of differences between the conditions.

7
A.K. Zinn et al.
Fig. 6. Satisfaction ratings depending on time and salient identity
Note. The range of the scale (0–100) has been adjusted to improve the visibility
of differences between the conditions.
3.4.2. H5. Main effect of meal names
To test for the effect of meal names on the change in satisfaction and
enjoyment ratings, we ran repeated measures ANOVAs with the meal
name and time (T1 vs T2) as the independent variables and the enjoy­
ment rating and satisfaction rating as the dependent variable. We found
no significant main effect of meal name (enjoyment: F (2, 757) = 1.48, p
= .230, η2p = 0.004; satisfaction: F (2, 757) = 0.78, p = .457, η2p = 0.002)
and no significant interactions between either meal name and time on
enjoyment (F (2, 757) = 1.06, p = .346, η2p = 0.003) or meal name and
time on satisfaction (F (2, 757) = 0.61, p = .546, η2p = 0.002). We,
therefore, found no support for Hypothesis 5.
3.4.3. H6: Interaction between salient identity and meal names
There was no significant interaction of identity and meal name for
enjoyment ratings (F (4, 751) = 1.40, p = .233, η2p = 0.007) and satis­
faction ratings (F (2, 751) = 1.25, p = .288, η2p = 0.007) and therefore no
support for Hypothesis 6.
3.5. Exploratory analyses
3.5.1. Changes in self-reported effort, habit, and self-congruity with meal
choice
We ran exploratory analyses on the change in the self-reported effort
to choose a meal, habit driving meal choices, and the self-reported self-
congruity with the chosen meal from T1 to T2 for the 760 participants
that had to change their meal selection. The effort to choose a meal
significantly decreased from T1 to T2 (T1: M = 86.80, SD = 17.19; T2: M
= 62.80, SD = 30.93; t (759) = − 18.38, p < .001, 95%CI [− 26.56,
− 21.43], d = 0.67). The extent to which habit drove the meal selection
significantly decreased (T1: M = 71.08, SD = 27.53; T2: M = 30.42, SD
= 27.52; t (759) = − 32.96, p < .001, 95%CI [− 43.07, − 38.23], d =
1.20) as well as the extent to which participants reported that the meal
choice was congruent with who they are as a person (T1: M = 69.86, SD
= 23.53; T2: M = 39.87, SD = 27.34; t (759) = − 22.79, p < .001, 95%CI
[− 32.57, − 27.41], d = 0.83).
3.5.2. Effect of identity salience on beef or chicken selection
While the names of the beef and chicken burger remained the same
throughout the conditions, we ran an exploratory analysis to test
whether the identity salience manipulation would influence the likeli­
hood of selecting a chicken as compared to a beef burger. For this
analysis we only included participants who selected one of the two meat-
based burgers at T1. The binary logistic regression model including
identity salience explained 1.6% of the variation in the selection (χ2 (2,
N = 760) = 8.69, p = .013). Both participants in the sustainable identity
condition (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [1.05, 2.22], p = .026) as well as in the
personal identity condition (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.16, 2.38], p < .001)
8
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
were more likely to choose the chicken burger than participants in the
meat-eater condition. The personal identity and sustainable identity
condition did not differ significantly in their likelihood to select a
chicken burger (OR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.64, 1.32], p = .652).
4. Discussion
The current study tested two different interventions that build on
customers’ social identities. We tested whether meat-free meal choices
can be increased by (1) activating a sustainable identity as opposed to a
personal identity or meat-eater identity, and (2) changing meal names to
sustainable names rather than neutral or vegetarian names to offer an
alternative identity that both meat-eaters and vegetarians can hold. We
tested the effectiveness and potential interaction of those interventions
in a free-choice scenario in which we were interested in the meal choice
that participants made (meat-based or meat-free burger). We then
limited the available meals to meat-free options (limited choice sce­
nario) to determine if the two interventions can protect against drops in
enjoyment and satisfaction reported by participants who previously
selected a meat-based burger and were now limited to a meat-free
burger.
The results indicate that an identity salience intervention can suc­
cessfully increase the selection of meat-free meals. Participants in our
study showed a strong preference for meat-based burgers, which is in
line with the inclusion criteria of being a meat-eater. However, acti­
vating participants sustainable social identity (rather than their meat-
eater or personal identity) significantly increased their choice of meat-
free meals. Our exploratory analyses further revealed that – next to
driving meat-free meal choice – identity salience affects whether par­
ticipants select a beef or a chicken burger. This distinction is relevant
because chicken has a lower carbon footprint than beef (Gerber et al.,
2013), offering a lower-emissions meat option. The results concerning
the effectiveness of the identity salience manipulation are in line with
previous research, confirming that identity salience can drive people’s
perception and decision-making (e.g., Tarrant & Butler, 2011; Hackel
et al., 2018). It further underlines the importance of not just accounting
for the long-term construct of social identification (e.g., through
assessing the general strength of identification) but also for the
short-term construct of identity salience when designing such
interventions.
Changing meal names to reflect an identity that both meat-eaters and
vegetarians can hold was also effective in increasing meat-free meal
selections. Sustainable meal names outperformed vegetarian names.
While previous research took an important first step in showing that
neutral names might outperform vegetarian names (e.g., Hielkema &
Lund, 2022), our results show that identity-related names might be an
even more effective way of increasing meat-free meal choices. This
intervention is especially promising as it is easy to implement in the field
and across different food outlets.
If participants who previously selected a meat-based burger were
limited to a meat-free meal selection, enjoyment and satisfaction ratings
decreased substantially. The limited choice scenario decreased the
perceived effort of choosing a meal (likely due to the reduced number of
meals available) and decreased the extent to which participants reported
relying on habit to choose meals. However, it also decreased the self-
reported self-congruency with the meal choice. The drop in enjoyment
and satisfaction ratings was steeper in the meat-eater than in the sus­
tainable identity and personal identity condition, indicating that iden­
tity salience partially determines to what extent enjoyment and
satisfaction drop when the meal selection is restricted to vegetarian
options. Overall, findings from the limited choice scenario reveal that
restricting customer choices can result in steep drops in satisfaction and
enjoyment ratings. This is in line with the lower social acceptability of
invasive interventions (e.g., Diepeveen et al., 2013) and the discussed
example of a restaurant chain that changed to meat-free menus but had
to revert back shortly afterward (Bowling, 2022). While restricting
A.K. Zinn et al.
customer choices may lead to a strong or full switch over to meat-free
meal options, it also has the potential to drive customers away, mak­
ing it an unviable solution for food outlets. Strongly limiting customer
choices, therefore, is not a suitable intervention for most food outlets.
4.1. Limitations and future research
One important limitation of the current online choice experiment is
that it relied on intentions to purchase specific burgers rather than
investigating actual behaviour in the field. Future field research is
required to test the interventions in real food venues. Unlike the meal
name intervention, the social identity salience intervention requires
adaption prior to being used in real food outlets. While effective, the
salience manipulation used in this study required participants to write
4–5 sentences which would not be a feasible manipulation of salience in
a real food outlet. We chose to use the adapted three-things manipula­
tion (based on Haslam et al., 1999) as it is a relatively strong manipu­
lation and avoids emotional confounds. This allowed us to test for an
effect of identity salience in a highly controlled setting. Going forward,
more subtle manipulation of identity salience (e.g., images or slogans
displayed in a restaurant) could be tested to determine whether such
interventions keep proving effective in driving meat-free meal
selections.
The findings are currently limited to a burger menu and to specific
meat-free menu items. Results might, for instance, differ for other types
of menus. This specific menu was chosen because burgers represent a
food item often ordered as a meat-based meal (as supported by the high
meat-based burger selections in this study). The interventions are
especially promising as they were successful in shifting ordering in­
tentions even for a menu with a high base rate of meat-based selections.
Nevertheless, the results need to be replicated for different menu items.
We used the examples of a falafel and a halloumi burger as meat-free
menu items. The specific vegetarian meals displayed in this study are
unlikely to have systematically influenced the results as those meat-free
options were presented to all groups. However, the baseline for ordering
meat-free meals might shift if other options are provided. For instance, a
previous choice experiment (Van Loo et al., 2020) has shown that par­
ticipants were more likely to choose burger patties made from pea
protein as compared to animal-like protein (produced by yeast) or
lab-grown meat. Compared to the percentage of meat-free burger se­
lections in our study, this study showed an overall higher percentage of
meat-free selections: 28% in the control condition and 32% when
additional environmental information was provided. However, this
might be explained by the different context (a shopping scenario in
contrast to the restaurant scenario used in the present study). Future
research is needed to test the interventions presented in this study for
different types of meat-free items and to investigate a potential
moderating effect of, for instance, familiarity with - and preference for
specific meat-free proteins.
Future research could consider the role of different food outlets.
Different social identities might be activated by the food outlet itself and
its location. For instance, someone’s national identity might be activated
by going to a restaurant that primarily focuses on the cuisine of their
home country. In contrast, eating in a school canteen might activate or
keep active someone’s identity as a student simply due to the location
and interaction with peers. This means that a salience intervention
would either have to be strong enough to switch participants away from
the identity that the food outlet surrounding might trigger, or it would
have to leverage the identity that is already activated by the surround­
ings to drive meal choices. This could mean that using a sustainable
name might not always be the most effective intervention. In some food
outlets, a name that reflects for instance a national identity or student
identity might be more effective.
The generalisability of the findings is currently limited due to the
specific group of participants included in this study. For instance, the
study only included Australian and UK residents and people who held
9
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
both a sustainable and meat-eater identity. While we did not find dif­
ferences for these specific nationality groups in the percentage of
intended meat-free burger selections and satisfaction ratings, it will be
an interesting avenue for future research to investigate potential dif­
ferences in the effectiveness of the intervention for different nationality
groups. Another limitation of the current study is the exploratory nature
of the comparison to neutral name and personal identity conditions. Our
study mainly focused on the comparison between the meat-eater and
sustainable identity and the vegetarian and sustainable names. How­
ever, neutral names are frequently used on menus and if no specific
social identity is salient, people’s personal identity might best explain
their behaviours. Therefore, further research is needed to confirm the
results relating to these two exploratory groups.
In the current experiment, participants did not have the option not to
select a meal in the limited-choice scenario. Based on the steep drop in
satisfaction and enjoyment ratings it could be expected that a similar
scenario in the field might cause customers to leave the restaurant. This
was also reflected in some of the comments that participants left such as
“In the second scenario I wouldn’t order the burger at all” or “if there was no
beef burger or chicken burger I would have gone elsewhere and not chosen any
of the other two options at all”. Assessing reactance or other negative
outcomes of interventions that limit customer choices deserve future
research attention to ensure implementing interventions is risk-free for
food outlets. Future studies could also assess at what level of choice
restriction adverse effects occur and whether some interventions might
fully protect against such effects.
Before testing the intervention developed in this study in the field,
the actual emissions caused by each meal must be calculated. Food
outlets will have to be cautious to avoid labelling meat-free alternatives
as the “sustainable” option if those meals are indeed less or similarly
sustainable than the meat option. Recent research has criticised that
modern ultra-processed plant-based meals are not as healthy or sus­
tainable as a more traditional plant-based diet (Macdiarmid, 2022).
However, for the examples of lasagne and sausages, the meat-free
alternative has a lower environmental impact than the meat-based
alternative (Clark et al., 2022). Taken together, the decision which
meals to promote in real food outlets must be guided by carbon emis­
sions calculations for each meal.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrated that accounting for or activating specific
social identities can represent an effective meal choice intervention.
Meal name interventions that activate people’s sustainable identity have
the potential to increase meat-free meal selections. This holds important
theoretical implications by testing to what extent short-term changes in
social identity salience influence sustainable meal choices. Further,
changing meal names to reflect an identity that both vegetarians and
meat-eaters can hold emerges as a more effective strategy than using
neutral or vegetarian names. The percentage of meat-free meals being
selected could be increased from only 6% (when the meat-eater identity
was salient and the meals had vegetarian names) to 28% (when the
sustainable identity was salient and the meat-free meal name reflected
this identity). Our findings provide further evidence that hard in­
terventions such as choice restrictions can result in decreased customer
satisfaction. This study underlines the importance of accounting for
customer social identities and specifically identity salience when
designing soft interventions to increase meat-free meal selections.
Future research can build on this approach to establish the effectiveness
of such identity-driven interventions across different food outlets,
different identities, and in the field.
Open science practices and data access statement
The study materials and data are openly available on OSF under the
following link: https://osf.io/uhxmb/.
A.K. Zinn et al.
Ethical statement
Both the pre-study and main study received ethics approval from the
University of Queensland ethics committee (approval code: 2022/
HE001726).
Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council
(FL190100143).
Declaration of competing interest
None
Data availability
The data is openly available on OSF : https://osf.io/uhxmb/.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank Sarah MacInnes for her
contribution to the early idea development of the identity-based meal
name intervention.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107067.
References
Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Restructuring
physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review
and qualitative comparative analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(9), e384–e397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30188-8
Biermann, G., & Rau, H. (2020). The meaning of meat:(Un) sustainable eating practices
at home and out of home. Appetite, 153, Article 104730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2020.104730
Bowling, D. (2022). Grill’d flips on 2 plant-based restaurants. Hospitality Magazine. https
://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/grilld-flips-on-2-plant-based-restaurants/.
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered
experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition,
2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
Chakravarty, S., & Fonseca, M. (2017). Discrimination via exclusion: An experiment on
group identity and club goods. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 19(1), 244–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12182
Clark, M., Springmann, M., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., Hill, J., Tilman, D., …
Harrington, R. A. (2022). Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food
products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(33), Article
e2120584119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119
Cruwys, T., Norwood, R., Chachay, V. S., Ntontis, E., & Sheffield, J. (2020). “An
important part of who I am”: The predictors of dietary adherence among weight-loss,
vegetarian, vegan, paleo, and gluten-free dietary groups. Nutrients, 12(4), 970.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12040970
Cruwys, T., Platow, M. J., Angullia, S. A., Chang, J. M., Diler, S. E., Kirchner, J. L., …
Wadley, A. L. (2012). Modeling of food intake is moderated by salient psychological
group membership. Appetite, 58(2), 754–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2011.12.002
Dagevos, H., & Voordouw, J. (2013). Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction
realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9(2), 60–69. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115
Desmet, P. M., & Schifferstein, H. N. (2008). Sources of positive and negative emotions in
food experience. Appetite, 50(2–3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2007.08.003
Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2013). Public
acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A
systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-756
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a
function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
31(5), 410–436. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1018
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A.,
& Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of
emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf.
10
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., …
Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361
(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324. eaam5324.
Gravelines, Ž., Banytė, J., Dovalienė, A., & Gadeikienė, A. (2022). The role of green self-
identity and self-congruity in sustainable food consumption behaviour. Organizations
and Markets in Emerging Economies, 13(2), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.15388/
omee.2022.13.83
Hackel, L. M., Coppin, G., Wohl, M. J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2018). From groups to grits:
Social identity shapes evaluations of food pleasantness. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 74, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.007
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index):
Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Appendix 2: Manipulations of social and organizational identification
of psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity salience
and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25(7), 809–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007004
Hielkema, M. H., & Lund, T. B. (2022). A “vegetarian curry stew” or just a “curry stew”?-
The effect of neutral labeling of vegetarian dishes on food choice among meat-
reducers and non-reducers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, Article 101877.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101877
Horgan, G. W., Scalco, A., Craig, T., Whybrow, S., & Macdiarmid, J. I. (2019). Social,
temporal and situational influences on meat consumption in the UK population.
Appetite, 138, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007
Kuppens, T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). Group-based emotions: The impact of social
identity on appraisals, emotions, and behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
34(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.637474
Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2013). Forced choice restriction in promoting sustainable
food consumption: Intended and unintended effects of the mandatory vegetarian day
in Helsinki schools. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36, 159–178. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10603-013-9221-5
Macdiarmid, J. I. (2022). The food system and climate change: Are plant-based diets
becoming unhealthy and less environmentally sustainable? Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 81(2), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665121003712
MacInnes, S., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2022). Habit drives sustainable tourist behaviour.
Annals of Tourism Research, 92, Article 103329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2021.103329
Nezlek, J. B., & Forestell, C. A. (2020). Vegetarianism as a social identity. Current Opinion
in Food Science, 33, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005
Nguyen, A., & Platow, M. J. (2021). “I’ll eat meat because that’s what we do”: The role of
national norms and national social identification on meat eating. Appetite, 164,
Article 105287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105287
Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg,
P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group (pp.
117–141). Basil Blackwell.
Ortega, D. L., Sun, J., & Lin, W. (2022). Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat
demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives
in China. Food Policy, 111, Article 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2022.102307
Osman, M., & Nelson, W. (2019). How can food futures insight promote change in
consumers’ choices, are behavioural interventions (eg nudges) the answer? Futures,
111, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.008
Parkin, B. L., & Attwood, S. (2022). Menu design approaches to promote sustainable
vegetarian food choices when dining out. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79,
Article 101721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101721
Parlasca, M. C., & Qaim, M. (2022). Meat consumption and sustainability. Annual Review
of Resource Economics, 14, 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-
111820-032340
Rothgerber, H. (2015). Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores,
vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.appet.2014.10.012
Stiles, G., Collins, J., & Beck, K. L. (2022). Effectiveness of strategies to decrease animal-
sourced protein and/or increase plant-sourced protein in foodservice settings: A
systematic literature review. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 122(5),
1013–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2021.12.010
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In
W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tarrant, M., & Butler, K. (2011). Effects of self-categorization on orientation towards
health. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1348/
014466610X511645
Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In
P. Roessler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of
media effects (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0088
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In Handbook of theories of social
psychology (pp. 42–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781446249222.n46.
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised
meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand
matter? Food Policy, 95, Article 101931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2020.101931
Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable
role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298241008
A.K. Zinn et al.
Whitnall, T., & Pitts, N. (2019). Global trends in meat consumption. Agricultural
Commodities, 9(1), 96–99. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.
309517990386547.
Wolstenholme, E., Carfora, V., Catellani, P., Poortinga, W., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021).
Explaining intention to reduce red and processed meat in the UK and Italy using the
theory of planned behaviour, meat-eater identity, and the transtheoretical model.
Appetite, 166, Article 105467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105467
Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T. S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F. N., … Jain, A. K. (2021).
Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-
11
Appetite 191 (2023) 107067
based foods. Nature Food, 2(9), 724–732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-
00358-x
Zinn, A. K., Koschate, M., Naserianhanzaei, E., & Lavric, A. (2023). Can we prevent social
identity switches? An experimental–computational investigation. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 12647. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12647
Zinn, A. K., Lavric, A., Levine, M., & Koschate, M. (2022). Social identity switching: How
effective is it? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, Article 104309. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104309